Krishna vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.—Heard.

According to the prosecution, four bags containing poppy husk have allegedly been recovered from the possession of the accused-Petitioner on 22.2.1998 by Sub-Inspector Raj Pal Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Mukandpu-, in the presence of one Badal Singh, son of Munsha Singh, resident of Hakimpur and Shri Harmail Singh, D.S.P. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that before the Matador which was I allegedly found to contain four bags containing poppy husk was subjected to search, there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, inasmuch as the offer made to the Petitioner was that if they, i.e., she and non-Petitioner wanted, the search to be carried out that could be in the presence of a Magistrate or a Ga2etted Police Officer.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this offer was not in compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Judha Singh v. State of Punjab. 1998 (2) RCR 507. where it was held that Investigating Officer is bound to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 and offer given by the Investigating Officer for searching the accused before Magistrate or Gazetted Police Officer is not a valid offer u/s 50. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in this case, it is also doubtful whether Badal Singh P.W. was really present at the time of recovery as if he had been really present at the time of recovery, seal after use would have been handed over to him and not to A.S.I. Sukhdev Singh. It is open to be debated whether offer made was in compliance with the provisions of Section 50, ibid. It is also open to be debated whether the so-called independent witness was present at the time of recovery.

In these circumstances, it is deemed proper to allow bail to the Petitioner. So, bail to the Petitioner to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Jalanric.